Presumably they'll slot them/the new teams in by ~average grades or such like.

Because its only four rounds, and you're merely trying for a balanced field over those four rounds there's much less requirement that things be really carefully balanced. The subsequent Swiss should presumably sort it all out reasonably enough.

Neil Graham wrote:The pairing system has been announced for Division Three North - from Round Five (ie Week 3) it's a Seeded Swiss.

The pairing system for Rounds 1-4 is described as follows:-

The pairing process for Divisions 3n and 4s

Rounds 1 and 2

Rank the existing teams by 4NCL order from the previous season. Separately rank the new teams. Pair two rounds of balanced pairings, with no new team playing another new team.

Rounds 3 and 4

Rank all the teams into 4NCL order and then do two rounds of balanced pairings in which no further account is taken of previously earned points.

Perhaps someone can explain in layman's terms what on earth this means?

I agree Neil, that this looks an odd scheme, and not as good as the one you suggested with the split into three `6-team` groups of roughly equal strength, to play 3 groups of 5-round, all play all, followed by a structured Swiss, as discussed on these threads previously.
I really don't see the proposed split of so called `old` and `new` teams (into two groups `A` & `B`), as being at all good..

Neil Graham wrote:The pairing system has been announced for Division Three North - from Round Five (ie Week 3) it's a Seeded Swiss.

The pairing system for Rounds 1-4 is described as follows:-

The pairing process for Divisions 3n and 4s

Rounds 1 and 2

Rank the existing teams by 4NCL order from the previous season. Separately rank the new teams. Pair two rounds of balanced pairings, with no new team playing another new team.

Rounds 3 and 4

Rank all the teams into 4NCL order and then do two rounds of balanced pairings in which no further account is taken of previously earned points.

Perhaps someone can explain in layman's terms what on earth this means?

From what I remember in the past, the idea is that if you get the top seed in round 1, you get the bottom seed in round 2, thus ending up with an average, or balance, across the weekend (similarly, if you got seed 4 in round 1, you'd expect seed 15 in round 2, although it won't work out exactly like this no doubt)

Have the actual seedings been released, and do we know when the pairings will be announced for weekend 1?

Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Neil Graham wrote:The pairing system has been announced for Division Three North - from Round Five (ie Week 3) it's a Seeded Swiss.

The pairing system for Rounds 1-4 is described as follows:-

The pairing process for Divisions 3n and 4s

Rounds 1 and 2

Rank the existing teams by 4NCL order from the previous season. Separately rank the new teams. Pair two rounds of balanced pairings, with no new team playing another new team.

Rounds 3 and 4

Rank all the teams into 4NCL order and then do two rounds of balanced pairings in which no further account is taken of previously earned points.

Perhaps someone can explain in layman's terms what on earth this means?

From what I remember in the past, the idea is that if you get the top seed in round 1, you get the bottom seed in round 2, thus ending up with an average, or balance, across the weekend (similarly, if you got seed 4 in round 1, you'd expect seed 15 in round 2, although it won't work out exactly like this no doubt)

Have the actual seedings been released, and do we know when the pairings will be announced for weekend 1?

I did like the look of Mick Norris proposel about spilt it in 2 groups as that was a great idea!!

The named teams then meet in Round Two with Manx Liberty, the median side, floating down to the lower rated group.

The problem I envisage is that by Round Two the top seeds are already meeting. I have no idea what system is to be employed in Rounds 3 & 4 but now we've gone down this route are teams with 4 points (the most likely being the first five mentioned) all going to be floated downwards or are they going to play each other? If they're playing each other my worry is that by Round Eight all the main contestants will have met and that the final three rounds will be a flurry of bottom feeding as the top rated sides scurry round mopping up the lower rated who will be faced with a disheartening set of pairings for Rounds 9-11. We'll just have to see.

Rank the existing teams by 4NCL order from the previous season. Separately rank the new teams. Pair two rounds of balanced pairings, with no new team playing another new team.

Yes, seems to have done that, always possible to argue about the pairings of course, can't have been straightforward to work it out

Rounds 3 and 4

Rank all the teams into 4NCL order and then do two rounds of balanced pairings in which no further account is taken of previously earned points.

Again, seems to make sense, and more straightforward after you have the results from weekend 1, and without the need to avoid new teams playing each other

But what are "balanced pairings" perhaps we might get an on-forum explanation. In respect of Gonzaga, they beat White Rose today in the European Club event. White Rose were 5th in Division One last year and Gonzaga were playing without the two top players (including a GM) on their 4NCL registration list.

Neil Graham wrote:In respect of Gonzaga, they beat White Rose today in the European Club event. White Rose were 5th in Division One last year and Gonzaga were playing without the two top players (including a GM) on their 4NCL registration list.

If you assume Gonzaga are seeded 1, and 3Cs 3 are seeded 18, then the balance is that MM3 and AB1 get to play both in the weekend

If you assume H&B are seeded 2, and Enniscorthy are seeded 17, then the balance is that MM2 and Brad C get to play both in the weekend

If you assume Ched 2 are seeded 3, and MM4 are seeded 16, then the balance is that 3Cs 2 and HC get to play both in the weekend (I don't see MM4 as high as 16th seeds, but the pairings avoid them playing either MM2 or MM3)

You get a harder to see balance by rotating the fixtures of the remaining 6 teams

Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

MartinCarpenter wrote:Surely the top teams are being kept apart in round two as well? Ashfield - Breadsall 1 look firmly mid table at best judging by their registration list. Might even be in the bottom half, I'm not sure.

The truly strong teams are Gonzaga, Hounds and Bears, Manchester 1 and actually Manx if all their top registered players turn up! I doubt if they'll have been seeded that way after last season though.

Last year A-B1 were ninth seeds in Div Three South but won their pool and effectively finished 7/16. As we know from last season Div Three South was stronger than Division Three North so sixth seed doesn't look too out of place this time round.